Focus Groups II: Analysing Results

1
Focus Groups II Analysing Results
2
Outputs from FGs

• Order out of Chaos?
• Writing up qualitative results is challenging
  because it is not an exact science yet should
  inform your research design, your hypotheses and
  your independent/dependent variables.
• Much attention in the qualitative methods
  literature on how to set up focus groups but very
  little on how to interpret results.

3
Different approaches

• What worked and what didnt?
• Were you asking the right questions?
• What other questions were raised by the groups?
• Key words
• Key themes
• Key emotions
• Key ideas

4
Challenges to interpreting FG results

• Lengthy texts
• Groups rambled or (more rarely) failed to engage
• Moderator talked to much or diverted the flow of
  the conversation
• People were reluctant to express their real
  opinions
• Hard to categorise or organise the proceedings
  particularly when there are a large number of
  groups

5
Ideas for organising FG analysis

• Transcripts are probably necessary.
• Categorization via words, ideas, themes or
  whatever seems appropriate
• Sometimes quite simple ideas will work fairly
  well.

6
Interpretive approach

• 1)      Break proceedings down into text segments
• 2)      Allocate under themes and headings
• 3)      Themes and headings can be inductive
  (from what arises) or deductive (imposed by the
  researcher initially) or mix of both

7
Holistic approach

• Script annotation (through listening or reading,
  writing interpretive thoughts. Transcript is
  considered as a whole rather than set of discrete
  responses allows social scientist to consider
  each proceedings as a whole, rather than discrete
  responses. You can re-experience the group, body
  language and tone of the discussion.

8

• Qualitative market researchers distance
  themselves from approaches to data (cognitive,
  journalistic, discursive) in which data from
  groups are taken largely at face value and
  responses may be counted. By comparison, 'good'
  qualitative research involves a therapeutic or
  clinical interpretation or the cracking of
  cultural codes

9
Phases of a group

• Forming
• Storming
• Norming
• Performing
• Mourning (or adjourning)

10

• Forming
• Considerable anxiety, testing. Assessing what
  help will come from facilitator what behaviours
  are appropriate or inappropriate.
• Storming
• Conflict emerges among sub-groups the authority
  and/or competence of individuals is challenged.
  Opinions polarize. Individuals react against
  efforts of the others to control them
• Norming
• The group begins to harmonize experiences group
  cohesion or unity for the first time. Norms
  emerge as those in conflict are reconciled and
  resistance is overcome. Mutual support develops.

11

• Performing
• The group structures itself or accepts a
  structure, which fits most appropriately its
  common task. Roles are seen in terms functional
  to the task and flexibility between them
  develops.
• Mourning
• The group must accept that the project is
  complete and disband gracefully. There may be a
  sense of loss and anxiety at having to break-up.
• Modified from a web page from the University of
  Queensland Department of Anthropology and
  Sociology, see http//planet.tvi.cc.nm.us/idc/Docu
  ments/FormingStorming.htm

12
The paradox of group dynamics

• Most important asset in promoting discussion
  amongst participants
• YET
• Biggest threat to open discussion of issues by
  all participants

13
How valuable is FG interaction?

• Some argue that while focus groups can provide
  insight into the experiences of individual
  participants, the real value of group data is to
  be found from analysing the interaction between
  participants.
• See Schindlers conclusions about the failure of
  Coke to understand focus group reactions to New
  Coke (and why it would fail)

14
Source

• Schindler, R.M. (1992), "The Real Lesson of New
  Coke The Value of Focus Groups for Predicting
  the Effects of Social Influence," Marketing
  Research, 4 (December), 22-27. Available
  electronically via the University of Glasgow
  library

15
Snapshots vs. moving picture
Cut and paste approaches, manual or computer, can
fail to capture or even recognize the following
events in the unfolding story of the focus group
VS Annotating-the-scripts approach -- more
likely to capture the whole moving picture of the
unfolding script or story that is the focus group
discussion.  
16
Good article on FGs

• http//www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/6.html

Catterall, M. and Maclaran, P. (1997) 'Focus
Group Data and Qualitative Analysis Programs
Coding the Moving Picture as Well as the
Snapshots'Sociological Research Online, vol. 2,
no. 1,
17
Benefits to moving picture

• Sequence
• See participants change views, think out loud,
  react
• Expand on experiences recounted earlier
• Interactive pattern is far clearer.

18
Coding over interpreting

• Social scientists who employ focus groups have a
  much more positive attitude to coding, cutting
  and pasting data, counting words or text
  segments, and using computers to assist with
  analysis

19
Analysis of interaction

• Shared language
• The beliefs and myths about the topic that are
  shared, taken for granted, and which ones are
  challenged
• The arguments which participants call upon when
  their views are challenged
• The sources of information people call upon to
  justify their views and experiences and how
  others respond to these.
• The arguments, sources and types of information
  that stimulate changes of opinion or
  reinterpretation of experiences.
• The tone of voice, body language, and degree of
  emotional engagement is involved when
  participants talk to each other about the topic.

20
Mixed coding

• Define key terms
• Read through and annotate scripts.
• Add in more primary and secondary terms as you go
• Organise key comments onto MS Word table with
  five categories.

21
Word table for FG analysis

• Item number
• Group
• Participant number
• Keyword 1
• Keyword 2
• Comment